I haven’t had a chance to look at it properly just yet but here is a summary of the proposed changes, taken from the Government’s press release. I will post thoughts on it later but what do you make of it?
- Introducing a graduated approach to purchasing alcohol – 18 years of age for on-licences and 20 years of age for off-licences.
- Restricting RTDs to 5 per cent alcohol content and limiting RTDs to containers holding no more than 1.5 standard drinks.
- Making it an offence for anyone other than a parent or guardian to provide alcohol to an under-18-year-old without a parent’s or guardian’s consent.
- Where alcohol is provided to an under-18-year-old the parent, guardian or authorised person will need to ensure the alcohol is supplied in a responsible manner.
- Allowing the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Health, to ban alcohol products which are particularly appealing to minors or particularly dangerous to health.
- Empowering local communities to decide on the concentration, location, and hours of alcohol outlets (including one-way-door policies) for both on and off-licences in their area through the adoption of local alcohol policies.
- Setting national default maximum hours of 7am – 11pm for off-licences and 8am – 4am for on-licence, club licence, and special licences for local authorities who do not adopt a local alcohol policy.
- Broadening the matters that must be considered in licensing decision-making to include such things as the object of the Act, the provision of the local alcohol policy, and whether the amenity or good order of the area would be lessened if the licence is granted.
- Strengthening the law on the type of stores eligible for an off-licence to reinforce the current approach that dairies and convenience stores are not eligible.
- Increasing penalties for a range of licence breaches, including allowing an intoxicated person to be on licensed premises, allowing violent behaviour to take place on premises, and running an irresponsible promotion.
- Widening the definition of ‘public place’ in liquor bans to include car parks, school grounds and other private spaces to which the public has legitimate access.
- Strengthening the existing offence of promotion of excessive consumption of alcohol by making it apply to any business selling or promoting alcohol, and setting out examples of unacceptable promotions, such as giving away free alcohol.
- Making it an offence to promote alcohol in a way that has special appeal to people under the purchase age. These changes will apply to any promotion, including TV advertising and billboards.
- Investigating a minimum pricing regime by giving retailers a year to provide sales and price data. If they are not forthcoming the Government will consider regulatory options for obtaining this data.
- Improving public education and treatment services for people with dependency issues.
- Requiring Parliament to lead by example by removing its licensing exemption.
The cabinet paper is on the MoJ website.
All good moves. ;D
Damn, I stuffed up my smiley.
A mixed bag – but pretty good. Sadly rejection all/most recommendations on alcohol advertising/promotions, and excise tax/cheap booze.
I must confess that I think the last point you mention, about Parliament, should be tightened up.
Make Parliament DRY. No booze at all and breath tests for amyone entering the chamber with a zero tolerance.
Include the Beehive and all the MPs offices, regardless of party.
Not bad overall, the RTD 5% one is certainly good, 7% and 8% RTDs are a recipe for getting smashed in under 90 minutes.
Not much help for the older person who has got a problem, downing a bottle of red or a six pack a night though. A few of those people around.
Alcohol advertising and promotion should have been hit much harder.
By golly, Spud will be on to you Loot.
Agree , all the ideas seem quite reasonable.
I haven’t read the details yet- but does anyone know how RTDs will be defined? This seems like it could be posturing rather than doing something. Unless the definition of an RTD is extremely clever, I’d imagine it’d be easy to get round.
Similarly, the requirement regarding advertising to under 18s seems vague (I assume the Herald’s claim that they are banning advertising that appeals to under 18s is wrong). Either the ban will have no effect (my bet is that advertisers will claim they are focusing on te 18 to 25 market, knowing that this is likely to also have a significant attraction for under 18s) or a lot of current advertising will go.
Good moves but is a total red hearing – if they were serious about tackling the culture they would be getting tough on marketing not age limits…
They have actually done something i agree with.
@ Alwyn – That is a really good idea!
Most of it’s ok. Can’t agree with @Loota on the RTD changes though — these are pure, discriminatory snobbery by people who think they are “real drinkers” because they like their Scotch neat. It’s about as fair as if parliament proposed a rule that said cars that appeal to young women could no longer be fitted with a turbo-charger. I can mix my G&T in 1:2 ratio, but I can’t buy it premixed at 6%? Nonsense. (Not that I necessarily would, of course, I have taste, but I’m drifting into snobbery myself…).
There would be fairer ways to address this, eg, an excise duty based on a formula directly using on beverage strength, rather than the current multi-band approach. I’d predict that this rule in it’s proposed form will just lead the the “flavoured beer” situation we see in America.
Also, the alcohol regulation campaign need a better spokesman than Doug Selman. That guy looks like a reanimated corpse. If that’s what drinking nothing at all does to you, I don’t want to take that risk
@Richard you are right!
Loota – alcohol ads are usuall;y the funniest ads on TV. I love the Carlsberg ads
“Introducing a graduated approach to purchasing alcohol – 18 years of age for on-licences and 20 years of age for off-licences.” – Better than raising the age altogether, not bad IMNSHO. Though it is going to bleep off a lot of 17-19 year olds
“Restricting RTDs to 5 per cent alcohol content and limiting RTDs to containers holding no more than 1.5 standard drinks.” I quite like this idea
“Making it an offence for anyone other than a parent or guardian to provide alcohol to an under-18-year-old without a parent’s or guardian’s consent.” – This sounds dodgy as how can you prove that you didn’t give that teenager that drink when they sneak some into your house!
“Where alcohol is provided to an under-18-year-old the parent, guardian or authorised person will need to ensure the alcohol is supplied in a responsible manner.” – Things will go wrong, you can’t watch your teenager every second of the day.
“Allowing the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Health, to ban alcohol products which are particularly appealing to minors or particularly dangerous to health.” – bleep me Nanna state?
I like alcopops and I’m not underaged, let’s ban tasty stuff. They will just mix their own if they can’t buy it like that. 
“Empowering local communities to decide on the concentration, location, and hours of alcohol outlets (including one-way-door policies) for both on and off-licences in their area through the adoption of local alcohol policies.” – concentration – sure – unless the area is overrun by temperance people
Location, if the location is seriously dodgy like next to someone’s house and they want to sleep. 
Hours – I think only if it directly affects the residents, otherwise yawn.
One way door policies can really cut a great night down
Plus, it’s more dangerous to wait for a taxi if you’re stuck on the street with other drunks. Party nights tend to have long waits on taxis too. 
“Setting national default maximum hours of 7am – 11pm for off-licences and 8am – 4am for on-licence, club licence, and special licences for local authorities who do not adopt a local alcohol policy.” – 4 am should be a one way door rather than a close down – otherwise people are forced onto the street and it’s safer to be waiting outside if stuff is open
“Broadening the matters that must be considered in licensing decision-making to include such things as the object of the Act, the provision of the local alcohol policy, and whether the amenity or good order of the area would be lessened if the licence is granted.” – Fair enough.
“Strengthening the law on the type of stores eligible for an off-licence to reinforce the current approach that dairies and convenience stores are not eligible.” – That would make them inconvenience stores
What’s wrong with the dairies? 
They will lose revenue 
“Increasing penalties for a range of licence breaches, including allowing an intoxicated person to be on licensed premises, allowing violent behaviour to take place on premises, and running an irresponsible promotion.” They can’t possibly control every punter!
I think as long as they deal with the problems as they arise then that should be sufficient. You can’t punish bars for things that are beyond their control. An intoxicated person would be safer in the bar than lying on the footpath. I remember having too much to drink at a wedding in a restaurant and having to be looked after by bar staff. Two hours later I was able to walk and took myself home 
Should they be done? 
“Widening the definition of ‘public place’ in liquor bans to include car parks, school grounds and other private spaces to which the public has legitimate access.” NOOOoOOOOOOooOOOo
Don’t turn the country into fascist Wellingrad! 
As long as people aren’t doing things that are unlawful then they should be left alone to enjoy life. I don’t want to live in a police state 
Killjoys 
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Strengthening the existing offence of promotion of excessive consumption of alcohol by making it apply to any business selling or promoting alcohol, and setting out examples of unacceptable promotions, such as giving away free alcohol.” – Going too far isn’t it?
What about those tiny tiny samples of wine and beer that they give away in the supermarket? 
I don’t think that this kind of thing contributes to any kind of alcoholism and binge drinking. 
“Making it an offence to promote alcohol in a way that has special appeal to people under the purchase age. These changes will apply to any promotion, including TV advertising and billboards.” – Great
let’s us show ads of elderly drinkers with walking frames! 
Most ads will appeal to underage drinkers if they appeal to people under 40. They are making it a bit hard for the poor advertisers.
“Investigating a minimum pricing regime by giving retailers a year to provide sales and price data. If they are not forthcoming the Government will consider regulatory options for obtaining this data.” – Let the poor people of this country pay more just for having a quiet drink with their mates. Also makes it more likely that youngens will preload as getting pissed in bars will be too expensive. Disadvantage bar owners.
“Improving public education and treatment services for people with dependency issues.” Great idea!
!
“Requiring Parliament to lead by example by removing its licensing exemption.” – they have a licensing exemption? What exactly does this mean you lucky lucky people? Damn maybe I should have tried to have a political career afterall! Parliament is a boozehaven!
! Anyone care to invite Spuddy to partake in the boozehaven? 
Help
My long typed out response went straight to the spam 
I don’t really care what the gummint does to you boozers…
Up with prohibition I say..!
Jeremy
My comment hasn’t been taken out of the spam 
It took me ages to write,
p.s. bootleggers and moonshine will always win! mwahahahahaha!
This is just more law making, really we should be enforcing the laws we already have.
Don’t sell alcohol to underage people, don’t serve drunk people!
I see the new temperance movement is out tackling vice and sin. The moral crusaders in the above comments are in an hysterical moral panic relishing their attacks on human freedom.
Labour is showing its true colours that of illiberalism and of bigotry and prejudice against youth. I hear Phil Goff wants to go further. So Labour’s point of difference on this issue is to outdo National on the knee-jerk reactionary stakes. Which one of those two parties was the conservative one again?
BTW – Here’s a good video: The Sunset of the State
I agree with Just Thinking. It is the same regarding 50 ofr 80 blood levels. If we cannot police the current laws how then by toughening them do we expect to get a different change. There are thos ewith multi DIY convictions that we get highlighted within the media and they continue to reoffend. So by reducing this to 50 we expect a change in utcomes.
the same ioccurred as a response regarding this issue 5 odd years aog. IIf I recall correctly Jim Anderton moved for RTD’s that exceeded 14% incurrde a greater exercise tax, what happened RTD reduced the alcohol context to below 14% and so Port and Sherry were hit with this increase, that hurt those more mature that favoured this form, not the intende3d target audience that the law was aimed at.
But at least these changes make an effort to improve what the 99 and 05 parliaments could not do, and though not a total answer at least some progress towards the answer and for future parliaments to build on and as far as I can see (Time will tell) without and forseeable detrimential consequences. Other than streaching our already under stressed police force with high expectations of the solution but no real additional resources.
I am sure that some within Labour wil be able to build on this and the various readings of the bill.
Still my comment isn’t through
Don’t worry spud. I’m sure it’s a fantastic defense of our right to drink.
Spud, try copying your response, but break the response up into 2 and review any links this maybe the basis of your problem. Have your links as 1/2 and the typed output as the rest.. If no links then split your response up into 2. There is a vast build up of expectation for this now
Thanks
, I hope it comes through 
Thanks Herodotus
, unfortunately I’m now on a different computer.
Jeeeez Spud you have thought this stuff through good. Don’t worry tho, when I’m Deputy PM in your Government you can pop down in the evenings to my office and we can share a Glenfiddich while we plot how to give those bloody Tories another serve. If you prefer I’ll have a bottle of JD’s handy too for those special occasions
I knew you were my man!
!
I thought you were a man of upstanding morals and irreproachable rectitude not one beset of such moral failings supping of that devil’s bathwater that has sent the once upstanding youth of this glorious nation into the depths of sin and depravity. /sarcasm
LOL
With RTD’s it’s largely about the marketing. Joe Camel, anyone?
Making it an offence for anyone other than a parent or guardian to provide alcohol to an under-18-year-old without a parent’s or guardian’s consent.
Glad to see a parent is still able to provide alcohol without a parent’s consent. The author may have had a few when they wrote this one.
Sheesh, talk about Nanny State! While some of the items they’re pushing are reasonable enough—like allowing greater community say over alcohol licensing, for example—others are just plain bizarre.
For example, they say 18 and 19 year olds can buy booze in a pub or club, but not at an off license. No one can supply alcohol to under-18s without their parents’ permission. But what about 18 and 19 year olds? They can’t buy alcohol themselves, but they can drink in a pub. Can they drink in a private home?
This isn’t about semantics: These days young adults often get together in small groups at friends houses and alcohol is part of it. The proposals don’t acknowledge the way young people often socialise in the real world.
And if 18 and 19 year olds are too immature to buy off license, then why are they allowed to drink at all? Why are they allowed to vote? Why are they allowed to fight and die for our country?
This is very complex issue that can’t be fixed with the kneejerk reactions of those of us who have been drinking longer than the affected group’s been alive. Let’s do the right thing, not the quick thing or the easy thing.
What disappoints me is this: you say many New Zealanders do not get a living wage. Many New Zealanders cannot afford a house, and lack security of dwelling. Many young new Zealanders lack the security and the materials needed to build a life, and you get a murmur. You say, lets ban, restrict, or censure something, and everyone turns into a font of suggestions as to how to go about it, and how much further we should go.
Olwyn – thats because you can ban something with a signature on a piece of paper.
So the pollies and the beauracrats love it. Its within their immediate ken.
Something like providing all NZ’ers with security of dwelling i.e. a sound roof over their heads?
Sounds like too much hard work, and hardly likely to be done in 3 years, and if you can’t point to it as a policy you successfully implemented why bother?
Ban, restrict or censure something, come election time you can stand by it and say “look we got this thing done”.
Yeah OK the whole thing is lame
Woe, that is a big comment Spud, so many smiley faces it looks like a rugby stand…
Interesting comments.
“Allowing the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Health, to ban alcohol products which are particularly appealing to minors or particularly dangerous to health.”
Note the use of the word “appealing”, is this the only real reference to advertising and marketing?
As long as our most heralded sporting team is sponsored by liquor, as is the World Cup etc etc the children who look up to these guys will be absorbing the sponsors name etc etc…
Interesting that we banned tobacco advertising but not liquor? How many sportspeople have made the news for smoking, versus those who have made the news for alcohol related misdemeanors or assaults?
75% of our heavy drinkers ar over 25.
Of course we can try to break the cycle with the younger folk BUT “monkey see, monkey do”
John Stuart Mill said that every man has a right to freedom except insofar as it harms others. Drinking and smoking and drug use in this country harms me, it saps my tax dollar, it causes broken (literally and figuratively) families, health, dcation, policing, prisons, and so on. Those who think our drinking habits harm no one… think again.
A small number of people get murdered each year, a tiny proportion of the population but we see it as important to intervene, to punish if not reduce the crime. Funny how differently we view the annual deaths attributed to alcohol, tobacco and drugs… how many car accidents and fatalities involve drink or drugs… how many murders invovle drugs or booze…
Yeah, good point, how much crime in general involves drugs or/and booze, which then acts to siphon well being, resources and money away from the community and away from productive uses.
You’re on fire this morning, Tracey.
Loota, at home “working” before a 915 meeting then back to the mines
Taking my chance while I can.
Top of the morning to you and all at red Alert… even the baddies
@11.26pm – Agreed
They are just doing this to grease up to the uptight section of society 
@Jeremy – LOL
Me like rugby 
“As long as our most heralded sporting team is sponsored by liquor, as is the World Cup etc etc the children who look up to these guys will be absorbing the sponsors name etc etc…” When I was a kid I remember the men sitting around drinking booze watching the matches, taking away the booze advertising won’t stop the kiddies seeing the labels
Besides, if alcohol companies can’t sponsor stuff then it will be harder for things to get funded in our sparsely populated country! 
“BUT “monkey see, monkey do”” And Monkey like!
Hi Tracey
You have a great day now! 
@Tracey, when I was 17 I found all alcohol particularly appealing and it was particularly dangerous to health…
I think it’s hilarious we now have a National (Party) bedtime of 4 am, if I was a thirsty nightshift worker finishing at 4 am, I’d be pretty pissed off….
So true Jeremy
And just think how it’s going to kill the next New Year’s Eve 
Whether or not this would come under the auspices of the harm principle is difficult to say because Mill never defined what he meant by harm, but I don’t believe the arch liberal himself would have ever supported moralising paternalistic policies such as these. To me none of these proposals deal with direct harm to others. They are just further restrictions on freedom imposed on us by illiberal barbarians. We already have laws that adequately deal with harm. The facts that it costs you in taxes is a problem of the state coercion that forces you by threat of violence to pay for it not of others drinking.
The only society the government wouldn’t have the moral authority to regulate alcohol would be an anarchist or libertarian one…
Since we pay for the hospitals we should have sensible regulation to control harm but I don’t really think these measures are the answer… For me the true answer is the one the government said it wouldn’t touch – excise tax… Alcohol tax doesn’t even come close to covering the drain it’s use causes on the public purse… Why should I be taxed more to pay for people who choose to drink..?
Why should my very hard working Ma be taxed more on her wine when she works hard?
Because she isn’t paying for the dent in the government’s books drinkers as a group cause… Neither are you…
She pays taxes and so do I!
She doesn’t end up in A and E after drinking so I don’t know why she should be punished with higher excise tax! She deserves a drink after a hard day’s work 
The only way to differentiate the “good” drinkers from the “bad” drinkers would be to have everyone pay for their own health, etc… I don’t want that and neither do you…
I’ll ask again, why should I a non-drinker have to help foot the multi-billion bill that drinking imposes on this country..?
Until you can answer that – up with your booze taxes…
Because non drivers have to foot the bill for car accidents. Non smokers have to foot the bill for cancer. Non breeders have to foot the bill for birthing, free doctors visits for under 6s (I think) education. Non politicians have to foot the bill for all their perks!
Maybe that could just have a fee for people who booze and then hurt themselves. The safe drinkers deserve to drink in peace.